Hundreds of cases dating back a decade or more may hang in the balance if investigators confirm that a civilian forensic examiner at the Army Criminal Investigation Laboratory falsified DNA test results.
The examiner on June 2 admitted making a false entry on a control sample used during one DNA examination, the Army Criminal Investigation Command, or CID, disclosed Friday.
The lab, at Fort Gillem, Ga., is now reviewing 479 or more cases the accused examiner has worked on since he began in 1995, the CID said.
Saturday, August 27, 2005
NYTimes Online, Associated Press (August 27, 2005):
Thursday, August 25, 2005
Forms of Uncertainty in Legal Reasoning
by Peter Tillers
BISC Special Event in Honor of Prof. Lotfi A. Zadeh
1. To predict how judges and jurors will resolve issues in litigation.The paper discusses the distinctive characteristics of these various purposes from a legal perspective.
2. To devise methods that can replace existing methods of argument and deliberation in legal settings.
3. To devise methods that mimic conventional methods of argument in legal settings.
4. To devise methods that support or facilitate existing, or ordinary, argument and deliberation in legal settings by mathematically illiterate actors such judges, lawyers, and jurors.
5. To devise methods that would capture some but not all ingredients of argument in legal settings about factual questions or legal questions.
6. To devise methods that perfect – that better express, that improve the transparency of – the logic or logics that are immanent, or present, in existing ordinary inconclusive reasoning about uncertain hypotheses that arise in legal settings.
7. To devise methods that have no practical purpose – and whose validity cannot be empirically tested – but that (ostensibly) serve to advance understanding of the nature of inconclusive argument about uncertain hypotheses in legal settings.